The Causes, Progression and Magnitude of the 1826 Red River Flood in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we review historical and paleoenvironmental evidence related to the 1826 Red River flood in Manitoba. In 1825, significant spring flooding and persistently high water levels in early autumn filled natural storage in the Red and Assiniboine river basins to capacity. Although daily historical records do not suggest that the winter of 1825–26 was exceptionally cold or snowy, other comments note an unusually deep snow pack near the Red River Settlement and throughout the southern basin. Historical accounts and paleoclimatic data document a cold, snowy April and an exceptionally late spring throughout much of central North America. The 1826 flood was exacerbated by abundant rainfall during the rising phase and was, according to historical and dendrochronological evidence, the largest event since at least C.E. 1648. The estimated peak flow for 1826 is approximately 6,370 m3/s (40% greater than the 1997 flood), which exceeds the current design capacity of flood protection for Winnipeg. Historical accounts in western Manitoba and anatomical signatures in alluvial logs suggest that the lower Assiniboine (downstream of Brandon) produced an exceptional flow in 1826, equivalent to perhaps 20% of the Red River’s upstream discharge. Reports of extremely strong, persistent winds from the south coincident with peak stage suggest that wind set-up may be an important factor that should be considered in future hydraulic studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".